[andjd]

So, there is a defensible reason for this carve-out.

For generations now, video game consoles have had very aggressive cryptographic pairing of parts, done in the name of securing the hardware against hacking by the console owner. This is done to prevent mods to enable cheating and piracy. Given that consoles are often sold at a loss with profits recouped on game sales, there's a justification for this.

Providing replacement parts for game consoles would also require tools to re-pair the replacement parts. If these tools need to be provided to independent repair shops, there's approximately a 100 % chance of them getting leaked and destroying the security of the console.

I'm not going to say that this is a good or a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that there's a real reason for lawmakers to treat game consoles different than phones or computers, and that it isn't necessarily a sign of corruption.

[pjc50]

This is also done for iPhones, which have not been exempted.

The "security" of the console against "unauthorized" software is arguably against the public interest. Is it really to the customer's benefit to exclude software providers from the market? Haven't we been round this with app store discourse?

> consoles are often sold at a loss with profits recouped on game sales

This used to be true, but is it still true?

[kube-system]

The purpose of gaming consoles is to play games, and allowing cheating software on them ruins the experience for others. Consoles are not general purpose computers, they have a specific use which is gaming, and it is reasonable to protect the fairness required to have a good experience when using it in the way it was intended to be used.

[parineum]

AFAIK, it's still true for Sony/Microsoft but hasn't been true with Nintendo for a while, I think since the Gamecube (when they stopped trying to play the performance game).

[bogwog]

Why must the government pass laws to protect the specific business model of exactly 3 mega corporations, a business model which harms consumers and harms competition?

The DMCA exception for consoles is the same thing. The government is just taking these companies word for it, and harming everyone else. If Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo can’t survive without these handouts from the government, then why should they? It’s not like game consoles are a necessity. The free market is what should decide whether a business model succeeds or not.

And regarding privacy, that’s bs. If consoles somehow become overrun with piracy, then publishers can just move their games to other platforms. PC is much easier to pirate on, is in general used by more tech savvy people, and it doesn’t have a rampant piracy problem. Steam wouldn’t be as successful as it is otherwise.

[avar]

Even if we accept this argument, the parts you're talking about are a tiny proportion of video game console parts.

There's no reason you shouldn't be able to e.g. buy replacement analog stick parts.

[ndriscoll]

The trend of "securing" (i.e. sabotaging) hardware against the owner is a large part of why these laws are needed in the first place.

[Aerroon]

>Given that consoles are often sold at a loss with profits recouped on game sales

I've wondered about this before: how is this not anti-conpetitive pricing? Is it okay because Sony/MS don't raise prices?

[dmoy]

US law in that area looks more at consumer harm, not incidental harm to other companies, IIRC. There's a separate way to get in trouble here around predatory pricing, but I think that's more complicated (you have to be doing it specifically to drive people out of business). It depends on what the rest of the market does. See https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Specifically

> Pricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many competitive markets and generally does not violate the antitrust laws. Sometimes the low-pricing firm is simply more efficient. Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses.

So

> Is it okay because Sony/MS don't raise prices?

Yes exactly this.

See also:

Printers sold below cost with expensive ink refills.

E-readers, often

Razors for shaving - the base or chassis or whatever you call it is often sold below cost.

[criddell]

The consoles-are-sold-at-a-loss explanation has always seemed like an extraordinarily week argument for giving Microsoft and Sony a pass on bad behavior.

Their consoles may be sold at a loss at launch, but I don't know of any console hardware that wasn't net profitable over it's lifetime with the possible exception of the XBox with the ring-of-death problem.

[hermannj314]

42488.2.f already mentions limitations in the bill to prevent overriding anti-theft.

They could have extended that to include anti-piracy or anti-cheat or cryptographic pairing, but they didn't. They created a specific carve out for video game consoles and not for those other things you mentioned.

When the government uses words generically to define its compelling interest to regulate, they are usually sincere. When the government uses words to protect an industry explicitly, they usually have been bought.

[LocalH]

That heavy cryptography is why the Xbox One is shaping up to be the least preservable console we have ever seen.

[maerF0x0]

> at a loss with profits recouped on game sales

and perhaps the FTC should be smashing down that practice as anticompetitive?

[fiddlerwoaroof]

I don’t see how it’s anticompetitive: any startup trying to get into the space is going to be making the case for product-market fit in terms of things like subscriptions and selling access to developers. I’d think a one-time per customer console sale at a loss would be one of the easier expenditures to justify to investors.